NBA salaries of U-M alums

Submitted by Human Torpedo on

Other than Crawford's new deal, nobody is really raking in big money right now. But it does appear they almost all got a slight bump via the new salary cap. These figures are off of ESPN for 2016-17 season:

Crawford: $13,352,012

Burke: $3,386,598

Stauskas: $2,993,040

THJ: $2,281,605

LeVert: $1,562,280

McGary: $1,526,040

GR3: $1,050,500

 

trustBlue

July 17th, 2016 at 12:56 AM ^

For a sports blog, I am rather surprised at the number of people who were apparently unaware that even the lowest paid NBA players make more than the average American working stiff.

WorldwideTJRob

July 17th, 2016 at 11:47 AM ^

Nah...always bet on Bigs in the NBA. They are the rarest commodities in the league. Mozgov just got paid $16M/yr and barely got off the bench last year. Biyombo had one good series in the playoffs and is now getting paid $18M/yr. So if I had to guess, I would put my money on Mitch to have the best 2nd contract of all recent guys to make the jump.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

A Fan In Fargo

July 17th, 2016 at 11:42 AM ^

I don't care what anyone says. No one who plays basketball deserves over 3 million a year. That is a ton of money. I love sports and it is entertainment for hundreds of thousands of people but what are we talking about here? 20 million a year to dribble a ball and shoot hoops. Guys like Navy Seals should at least get a million then right?

WorldwideTJRob

July 17th, 2016 at 11:58 AM ^

It's all entertainment, why should Lebron make less than Tom Cruise at their respective jobs? Or Messi? Or Verlander? Or Taylor Swift? The difference between the people I mentioned and a Navy seal is that unfortunately nobody is going out of there way to see or pay to watch a Navy Seal perform. Athletes, Actors and Performers can demand a ridiculous salary because they have millions of fans around the world that want to see them perform their craft.



Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

LKLIII

July 17th, 2016 at 1:19 PM ^

Plus--at least in the private sector compared to government jobs-- how much they earn is a direct reflection of how much worth they're providing the marketplace.  The salary isn't determined by any one individual--it's a collective deicsion we make as a society.  The reason an athlete or entertain can make X millions of dollars per year is because they're worth more than that in terms of value to either team owners, ticket/event promoters, corporate sponsors, etc.  And the reason the team owners, event promotors, corporate sponsors, etc. decide those athletes and entertainers are worth it is because collectively we as a society prove over the course of years that it IS worth it--when they hire XYZ actor or athlete, we collectively are willing to pay those millions by being entertained by those actors or athletes or when they do celebrity of endorsements we  collectively buy more of that product.  

Granted, some entertainers and athletes are underpaid--in which case you would think eventually the marketplace (and the athlete/entertainer themself) would figure that out and boost their income.  And conversely, if somebody is OVERPAID for their performance, eventualy the marketplace will figure that out too.  And it even has only tangental relationship to how HARD somebody works.  It plays a part in a competitve marketplace since it's likely to boost the skill or ability of the person who is working hard.  But it's not always the case.  Somebody could work 24/7 making buggy whips, but if nobody drives buggy & horse carriages anymore, that guy is going to go broke.  Or somebody could be naturally gifted and not have to work hard to provide alot of value.

Bottom line is, barring theft or fraud, it has everything to do with how much collective value they're providing the rest of the marketplace.  Simple supply & demand.